Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Scattering — where it appears

The redirection of a wave or a particle by an object in its path, described by a cross-section rather than by a size. How much is scattered depends steeply on the ratio of the wavelength to the scatterer — as its inverse fourth power when the scatterer is small, which is why the sky is blue.

Named by 10 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The blow-out band has two edges, not one. The ratio of radiation force to gravity against grain radius, with the radiation-pressure efficiency included: a grain much smaller than the wavelength of the light barely interacts with it — the efficiency falls as the fourth power of the size, which is Rayleigh's law — so the ratio stops rising and turns over. The dashed line is the same ratio with the efficiency taken as one, which is the usual drawing and is right only to the right of the turnover at 115 nm. The consequence is that a grain can be too small to be blown out as well as too large. Taking the threshold at a half — the value at which a grain released from a circular orbit is unbound — the band runs from 48.2 nm to 574 nm, and the largest ratio any grain of this material reaches is 1.87. Everything outside that band stays, and what stays does not stay put: it spirals.

The size the light cannot blow away

Radiation pressure and gravity both fall as the inverse square of distance, so their ratio is a property of the grain and not of where it is. What follows is a band of sizes that get blown out — with a lower edge as well as an upper one — and a drag, on everything else, that is the same pressure read one order further in v/c.

astrophysics · Radiation pressure Two straight lines that are not the same line. Half the difference between the liquid and vapour densities, in units of the critical density, against the distance from the critical temperature — both logarithmic, over 5 decades. The van der Waals curve is solved for the coexisting pair at each temperature and its slope in the last decade is 0.500, which is the mean-field ½. Real fluids give 0.326. The two differ by 11 per cent at t = 0.1 and by a factor of 7.9 at the bottom of the axis, which is why an equation with the wrong exponent in it looked right for eighty years.

The point at which the two become one

Heat a sealed tube of carbon dioxide and the meniscus inside it does not boil away — it fades, the two densities converging until there is nothing to separate. Twenty millikelvin before that happens the fluid turns milky, and the exponent describing the last approach is a number van der Waals got wrong and could not have got right.

thermodynamics · Phase change What a collision has to spend, against what it is given. The energy available in a proton–proton collision, against the energy of one beam, on logarithmic axes. Against a stationary target the available energy is √(2mE) and the line has slope one half; head-on it is 2E and the slope is one. Bevatron at 6.2 GeV per beam reaches 3.7 GeV; SPS fixed target at 450 GeV per beam reaches 29.1 GeV; LEP at 104.5 GeV per beam reaches 209.0 GeV; Tevatron at 980 GeV per beam reaches 1960.0 GeV; LHC at 6500 GeV per beam reaches 13000.0 GeV. The gap is the whole architecture of the subject: the LHC's beams give 13000 GeV head-on and would give 110 GeV against a stationary proton, a factor of 118. Reaching the same 13000 GeV in fixed-target mode would need a beam of 90.1 million GeV. What the missing energy has gone into is not lost: it is the kinetic energy of the centre of mass, which every product has to carry away and which no experiment can use.

The collision that wastes most of the energy

The LHC's two beams carry 6,500 GeV each and 13,000 GeV are available. Fire one of those beams at a stationary block of copper instead and 110 GeV are available — the other 12,890 have gone into the motion of the wreckage and cannot be used for anything. The difference is a square root, and every accelerator built since 1970 is a consequence of it.

relativity · Relativistic dynamics N when the phases are random, N² when they are not. Scattered intensity against the number of scatterers, both logarithmic, for two ways of adding the same amplitudes. The lower curve averages 400 draws of N unit amplitudes with independent random phases and grows as N^1.000; the upper one adds them in phase and grows as N². At 3000 scatterers the two differ by a factor of 2921. Nothing about the scatterers is different between the two — same number, same strength, same wavelength. Only the arrangement is, and it is worth three decades here.

Why a litre of water is not blue for the reason the sky is

The same molecules that make the sky blue also make the refractive index of air, and the two numbers agree because the sideways sum has random phases and the forward one does not. Condense those molecules into a liquid and the sideways sum collapses by a factor of sixteen — and what is left is thirty-four times smaller than the absorption that actually colours the water.

optics · Scattering Why only a sideways scattered wave takes anything away. The transmitted amplitude behind a thin scatterer, drawn as a phasor: the incident wave of unit length along the axis, plus a forward-scattered wave of length 0.12 at 0°, 60°, 90°, 150°. What a detector reads is the square of the total length. A scattered wave along the incident one lengthens or shortens the sum in proportion to itself; one at right angles changes the length only in second order, because a small perpendicular addition to a long vector barely alters its length. So a scatterer that removes energy from the beam at first order must scatter forward with a component perpendicular to the incident wave, and the size of that component is the whole extinction — which is the optical theorem.

Everything a scatterer removes, from one direction

How much light a particle takes out of a beam — by scattering it anywhere at all, and by absorbing it — is fixed entirely by what it does in the forward direction, where its scattered wave cannot be told apart from the incident one. The mechanism is interference, and it also gives the refractive index.

optics · Scattering Two terms, and the distance neither can beat. The smallest distance a probe of a given momentum can resolve, as the sum of two terms. The falling one is the uncertainty relation: more momentum, shorter wavelength, finer resolution. The rising one is gravity: the probe's own energy curves the region it is probing, and past a point it makes a horizon larger than the thing being looked at. With the gravitational term at 1× the Planck area, the least resolvable distance is 2.286e-35 m — each located by scanning the drawn curve over four hundred thousand momenta rather than by substituting into a formula. There is no momentum at which the resolution is better than that, so the ordinary procedure for measuring a distance has a floor, and the floor is the Planck length up to a factor of order one.

The length no experiment can resolve

Measuring a small distance needs a short wavelength, a short wavelength needs a large energy, and a large energy in a small region makes a horizon. Past a point, pushing harder makes the probe bigger — and the distance where that turns round is the Planck length.

astrophysics · Planck scale The pattern the whole sky is written in. The sky as a disc — zenith at the centre, horizon at the rim, equal angles at equal distances — with the sun 30° above the horizon. Each short line is the direction the electric field vibrates in at that point, and its length and darkness are how polarised the light there is. The directions are perpendicular to the plane containing the sun, the observer and the point, which puts them tangent to circles centred on the sun. The heavy arc is the locus 90° from the sun, where the polarisation is strongest — 74 per cent here — and it is a great circle rather than a patch: a band across the sky, not a region near the horizon. This is what a polarising filter on a camera acts on, and it is why turning one darkens a band of sky and leaves the rest almost untouched, and why the effect is strongest when the sun is off to one side and absent when it is behind the photographer.

The pattern the sky is written in

Scattered sunlight is polarised, so the whole sky carries a direction of vibration at every point — arranged in circles about the sun, strongest on the great circle ninety degrees away from it, and vanishing at points that were found by looking before anyone could explain them. Bees navigate by it and a camera filter reads one band of it.

optics · Polarisation How large the hidden dimensions would have to be. The size extra dimensions would need, for gravity's true scale to be at a TeV rather than at 10¹⁹ GeV, against how many of them there are — a logarithmic axis of metres, for three choices of the true scale. The relation is the one that makes the arrangement work: the Planck mass observed in four dimensions is M_*^(2+n)Rⁿ, so gravity is weak because its field spreads into a volume nothing else can enter. Solved for R at a true scale of a TeV: 1 dimension needs 2.9e+13 m, 2 dimensions needs 2.4e-3 m, 3 dimensions needs 1.0e-8 m, 4 dimensions needs 2.2e-11 m, 5 dimensions needs 5.4e-13 m, 6 dimensions needs 4.5e-14 m. The two horizontal lines are where experiment has been. One extra dimension would have to be of order a hundred astronomical units, which would have wrecked the orbits of the planets and is excluded absolutely. Two would have to be of order a millimetre — which is what made the arrangement famous, because a millimetre is a distance a laboratory can test, and torsion balances have since verified the inverse-square law down to fifty-two micrometres and excluded it. Three or more sit below a nanometre, where no gravitational measurement reaches, and are untouched.

The scale that may not be where it looks

Every Planck number assumes gravity is four-dimensional all the way down. If it is not — if the field spreads into dimensions compact enough to have escaped notice — the true scale where gravity becomes strong could be at a TeV, and the whole remoteness of the Planck scale would be an artefact of where the field lines go. It is the one part of the subject an experiment can address, and the experiments have addressed it.

astrophysics · Planck scale How far the vacuum is from being a nonlinear medium. The size of the vacuum's departure from linearity, as a fraction, against the electric field it is subjected to — thirteen decades of field and twenty-eight of correction, both logarithmic. The scale is the Schwinger field, computed here from the electron's mass and the fundamental constants as 1.32e+18 volts per metre: the field at which a pair gains its own rest energy over a Compton wavelength, and therefore the field at which the vacuum stops being a passive backdrop. The marks are the strongest fields that exist. a laboratory magnet, 10 T is 2.3e-9 of it; a hydrogen atom's own field is 3.9e-7 of it; a 10²² W/cm² laser focus is 2.1e-4 of it; the Schwinger field is 1.0e+0 of it; a magnetar, 10¹¹ T is 2.3e+1 of it. So a laboratory is twenty-eight decades from making the effect large, and a magnetar's field is above the critical one — which is why the only places the vacuum's nonlinearity has been seen are the two where the fields are not human: the ultraperipheral collision of two heavy nuclei, and the surface of a neutron star.

The one medium that was supposed to add exactly

Superposition holds because an equation is linear, and every material stops being linear at some amplitude. Empty space was the exception: Maxwell's equations are linear exactly, and two beams cross with no interaction of any kind. Quantum electrodynamics says otherwise — light scatters light, and a strong field makes the vacuum birefringent — at a field of 1.3 × 10¹⁸ volts per metre, which no laboratory has come within four decades of.

waves · Superposition The peak that is lost to a fraction of a wave. The height of the central peak, relative to a perfect pupil of the same size, against the root-mean-square error of the wavefront in waves, for four kinds of error — each computed from the transform and each normalised to the same rms. The dashed curve is the usual approximation, the exponential of minus the square of two pi times the error. What the figure shows is that to a good approximation it does not matter WHAT the error is, only how large it is in the mean square: four quite different shapes of wavefront give nearly the same peak. A fourteenth of a wave leaves 80 per cent of the peak, which is the conventional definition of diffraction-limited, and it corresponds to a quarter of a wave peak-to-valley for a simple defocus — which is where Rayleigh's quarter-wave rule comes from and why it is a convention laid over a computed number rather than a threshold in the physics.

How accurate a mirror has to be

The pupil's amplitude decides the rings; its phase decides the peak. A wavefront error of a fourteenth of a wave root-mean-square leaves eighty per cent of the peak intensity, which is the whole of what 'diffraction-limited' means — a convention laid over a computed number. And the number barely depends on what the error is, only on how large: four quite different aberrations of the same magnitude give nearly the same answer.

optics · Diffraction

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Cross-sectionEnergyMeasurementRayleigh scatteringSuperpositionAberrationAbsorptionBlack holeCompressibilityCritical pointDiffractionDimensional analysis

All concepts